Data Summary of Municipal Solid Waste Management Alternatives. Volume 1: Report Text Page: 99 of 216
This report is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
* Collection and transportation of MSW in a packer truck, plus landfilling of the
MSW (Strategy 1 in Table 1.1).*
Table 5.3 shows the energy and emissions over a 20-year period for an integrated MSW
management strategy that relies on mass burning MSW. The estimates in the table include not
only energy and emissions for collection and mass burning, but also the emissions from the
leachate from the ash landfill, as well as the contribution of landfilling to the energy and emis-
sions for the strategy as a whole. The results are given separately for transportation, processing
(mass burning), and disposal (landfilling the ash). Table 5.4 presents the same data for the
Mass burning produces about four times more energy per ton of MSW than is recovered
from a landfill. Air emissions from mass burning include much smaller quantities of organics,
but much larger quantities of metals, than air emissions from landfills. Ash monofills produce
smaller quantities of leachate than landfills, and the leachate has a lower metals content as well.
Strategies that include mass burning and shred-and-burn RDF require smaller volumes of landfill
space than any other strategy, especially if the combustion strategy also includes separation and
For the nation as a whole, an average of 2-4% of the weight of incoming refuse is ferrous
metals recovered for recycling from the ash. The energy saved by recycling the metal is an
additional 0.36 million Btu per ton of MSW, or 4% of the net energy recovered by mass burning
(see Exhibit II). That savings is not included in the data base.
Other Integrated Strategies Described in the Data Base
The computerized data base permits users to integrate RDF production and direct com-
bustion with other MSW technologies to determine the energy and environmental implications of
any integrated MSW management strategy. Exhibit II and the computerized data base provide
calculations for the following important integrated strategies that include mass burning:
" Collection and transportation of MSW in a packer truck, plus on-site separa-
tion of recyclables (in a mixed-waste materials recovery facility-MRF), plus
mass burning the remaining MSW, plus landfilling ash in a monofill (Strategy
3 in Table 1.1)
" Collection and transportation of MSW in a packer truck, plus collection and
transportation of curbside-separated recyclables in a multi-compartment truck,
plus MRF operations and remanufacture of the collected, separated materials,
plus mass burning the remaining MSW, plus landfilling ash in a monofill
(Strategy 7 in Table 1.1)
* All the integrated strategy examples in this report compare other technologies with a strategy of landfilling alone
because no strategy can eliminate the need for a landfill; thus, all integrated strategies will involve adding other
technologies to landfilling.
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
SRI International. Data Summary of Municipal Solid Waste Management Alternatives. Volume 1: Report Text, report, October 1992; Golden, Colorado. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1310776/m1/99/: accessed May 20, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.